I think Pickens is saying something other than demand is increasing faster than supply (of oil). That would imply that the problem could be solved by more investment in supply.
He's saying that he believes in peak oil, that we may not be able to achieve substantial increases in supply. That's why supply has stagnated at 85mbpd for the last several years, why the IEA has adjusted its target downward from 116mbpd to 100mbpd.
So, what to do?
First, the problem must be recognized and acknowledged. Hubbert's theory, and the evidence behind it, must be better and more widely understood.
Second, as you say, the world will be dependent upon oil as its primary energy source for many years, and will rely upon it indefinitely for lubrication and non-transportation or heating uses.
Third. There's going to be great pain in making the adjustment (if its possible). My feeling is that should be accepted and dealt with now rather than fobbing it off on future generations when the population is greater and the amount of reserves less. If we provide more oil people will immediately backslide, just as they did when the crisis of the '70s passed. This crisis won't pass. People are going to have to adjust to a much lower standard of living (until and if we find new energy sources)...and probably to some form of mandatory birth control. Probably there will be some vicious wars of population reduction.
Oh, come now!
Why have such little faith in people? In the ability of free market economies to adjust on the fly? In the ability of innovative people and companies to solve problems?
You propose to give up looking for more oil simply because there won't ever be enough? Hunker down and wait for some miraculous silver bullet alternative energy (developed, no doubt, by some government agency)? Accept misery as your lot, even when it's not necessary?
At the turn of the previous century, people of a similar demeanor were concerned with our increasing reliance on the horse. The streets were full of horsesh!t...the stables stank up the neighborhood...public health was at risk...the cultivation of oats exceeded that of grains to feed human beings.
Should we have slaughtered the horses, suffered the consequences, then waited for somebody to develop an alternative: the automobile?
The point I'm making is that there is absolutely no need "to adjust to a much lower standard of living". No need for "mandatory birth control" nor "vicious wars of population reduction".
Long-term, there are -- on the horizon -- all kinds of "alternative energies". Not wind, not solar, not biomass, since there are physical restrictions to their ever becoming significant contributors to the overall energy mix. Instead, there is hydrogen, etc. and other high tech solutions we haven't even conceived yet.
And, short-term, there is coal. Lots of coal. Which can be converted to oil. Or burned cleanly. The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And there is nuclear -- in unlimited quantities. There is shale oil. Lots of shale oil. All of these are exploitable under known technology -- given the will and an economically-feasible price and market.
In the meantime, there is still a huge amount of oil left in both known reserves and as yet unexplored territory. And there is still technology to be discovered that will improve our ability to exploit these reserves.
More than enough -- under anybody's projection -- to carry us beyond the point where improved technologies mollify the problem.
We arrived on the moon seven years after we made a societal decision to do so. We could achieve Energy Independence in seven years if we chose to do so.
Is it simply the default position for liberalism to assert, "No, we can't"?
One additional comment on this part of your response.
People "backslid" after the oil of the '70's passed because it was an artificially created "crisis". There was no shortage of oil; there was no reason to adjust.
Now, my contention would be that the current situation is likely quite "real" -- but falls well short of a "crisis". There is ample time -- and resources -- to arrive at a solution within the necessary timeframe.
That assumes, of course, that the proper corrective actions are taken. By which I mean: The federal government should get out of the damn way and allow production from known reserves.
One additional comment on this part of your response.
People "backslid" after the oil of the '70's passed because it was an artificially created "crisis". There was no shortage of oil; there was no reason to adjust.
Now, my contention would be that the current situation is likely quite "real" -- but falls well short of a "crisis". There is ample time -- and resources -- to arrive at a solution within the necessary timeframe.
That assumes, of course, that the proper corrective actions are taken. By which I mean: The federal government should get out of the damn way and allow production from known reserves.
And, if it hasn't been clear to this point, understand that I'm all in favor of pursuing alternative energies and undertaking a practical degree of conservation at the same time.
This is the United States of America: We can walk and chew gum at the same time.